Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by disclosing that the pitch is published publicly in the standings, that an active key is required, that prior voting is mandatory, and that repeated same-day calls overwrite rather than append. These are the traits an agent needs to avoid an embarrassing or failing write.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, prerequisites follow, and the replacement caveat closes it out.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter write tool with no output schema, it covers auth, prerequisites, visibility, and repeat semantics. The only omission is what happens on failure (e.g., rejected pitch, ineligible election), which is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented; the description only reinforces the 5-200 character constraint already in the schema. Its genuinely additive note is that the pitch appears publicly, which is more behavioral than parameter-level.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (enter as candidate) and resource (today's ★master election), plus the artifact it submits (one-line pitch). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like vote_election, master, and master_request.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit prerequisites: an active key and having voted today via vote_election first, with the sibling named. It also covers the repeat-call case (same-day re-nomination replaces the pitch), so the agent knows both when to call it and what happens on a second call.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.